Tempkins v. Synco Chemical Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tempkins v. Synco Chemical Corp.

93 A.D.2d 820, 460 N.Y.S.2d 1016, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17661

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 4, 1983

StatusPublished

This text of 93 A.D.2d 820 (Tempkins v. Synco Chemical Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tempkins v. Synco Chemical Corp., 93 A.D.2d 820, 460 N.Y.S.2d 1016, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17661 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action for a permanent injunction and to recover damages for breach of contract, trade-mark and trade-name infringement, and unfair business competition, defendants Synco Chemical Corp., Joseph F. Randisi and Sal Randisi appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Kelly, J.), dated February 23, 1982, which denied their motion for a protective order regarding plaintiffs’ notice for discovery and inspection. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. (Cf. Matter of U. S. Pioneer Electronics Corp. [Nikko Elec. Corp. ofAmer.], 47 NY2d 914.) In the absence of any notice of appeal addressed to the further order of the same court, dated March 1,1982, denying a motion for a protective order regarding plaintiffs’ “first” set of interrogatories, we pass upon no further issue. Lazer, J. P., Gulotta, Brown and Boyers, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

— In an action for a permanent injunction and to recover damages for breach of contract, trade-mark and trade-name infringement, and unfair business competition, defendants Synco Chemical Corp., Joseph F. Randisi and Sal Randisi appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Kelly, J.), dated February 23, 1982, which denied their motion for a protective order regarding plaintiffs’ notice for discovery and inspection. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. (Cf. Matter of U. S. Pioneer Electronics Corp. [Nikko Elec. Corp. ofAmer.], 47 NY2d 914.) In the absence of any notice of appeal addressed to the further order of the same court, dated March 1,1982, denying a motion for a protective order regarding plaintiffs’ “first” set of interrogatories, we pass upon no further issue. Lazer, J. P., Gulotta, Brown and Boyers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

93 A.D.2d 820, 460 N.Y.S.2d 1016, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17661, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tempkins-v-synco-chemical-corp-nyappdiv-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack